ATUL SAXENA Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts, in brief, as evident from material on record as well as from submissions raised on behalf of rival parties are that, the Complainant and his wife have commercial relationship with accused persons so much that the Complainant was appointed as a Legal Advisor of the Company, namely, Culture Home Developer Pvt. Ltd., on remuneration. Further, wife of Complainant has entered a Memorandum of Understanding/ Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "MOU/Agreement") for adjusting the amount paid by Complainant and his wife towards allotment of flats as well as share.

(2.) It appears that relationship between parties became soar and a dispute arose to the extent that payment of remuneration of Complainant was discontinued as well as condition of MOU/Agreement were allegedly not complied with and this led to appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of aforesaid agreement wherein an interim order was also passed and recently the Arbitrator has pronounced award dtd. 27/11/2021 in favour of Complainant and his wife. The said award is challenged by accused persons under the provisions of Sec. 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1996").

(3.) During pendency of arbitration proceedings the Complainant filed a First Information Report against accused persons (applicants herein in both applications), for allegedly committing offences under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC.